masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Is the lack of a traditional boss fight/villain really that bad?
I think a large part of the reason people were upset with the ending is that they didnt have a typical villain to defeat. That's where I think things like the IT came from. The need to have something to defeat. When I really think about it though, there isn't that type of villain. Assuming the catalyst is evil is implying that it has morals. Which it can't. "Evil machines" doesn't make sense. Organics have morals because they evolved living around each other for thousands of years. They started off killing each other over things like food, land, and mates. Eventually a system of "right and wrong" developed. But its an organic system. A synthetic being that abruptly comes into existence and is told to complete what is essentially an impossible task isnt going to look at life in an even remotely similar way. This is two completely different types of life sharing the same living space. Those people that immediately tried to vilify the catalyst/reapers in the way that they did are applying organic morals and logic to a synthetic life form. Similar to how the catalyst applied synthetic logic to how organics should exist when it came up with its solution. Both of these thought processes are absurd. Those people that are still trying to vilify the catalyst/reapers are only proving that a conflict between the two is inevitable. But because the organics are the creators, this falls back on them. The leviathan are an organic race that created a synthetic life form... to solve a problem that exists because of organics creating synthetics. This is all happening because of organic creating synthetic life, what they create it for, and how they treat/react to its sentience. Until organics need for technological advances surpasses the creation of artificial intelligence, this will always happen. Because of that I think this is WAY above what shepard may want and even above humanity. This thought process has lead me to what my choice is in the ending. :Good is good and evil is evil, they are not organically created things. Just because the Reapers and the Catalyst are ignorant to know what they are doing is evil, doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything wrong.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:49, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :Philosophying aside: no. Most reasons why the ending was hated had nothing to do with the absence of a big boss fight. Bad storytelling, with insufficient foreshadowing and reflection of the players' choices, for me and lots of other people I know. --Ygrain (talk) 19:25, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :Good and evil are completely subjective; it depends on who is judging it. The Catalyst and the Reapers believe that they are doing the right thing—they believe that their actions are for the benefit of others, even if it involves killing them and forcibly converting them into husks or Reapers. Synthetics can have morals, as we see with the geth and EDI. But on the starting subject, there is a final villain in the Illusive Man, who must be ended before the plot can be resolved. The Reapers can also qualify in Destroy and (arguably) Control. I don't think a "proper" final boss battle would have made less people complain; considering the usual complaints, most ending-bashers probably wouldn't acknowledge that there even was a boss battle. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 19:44, November 7, 2012 (UTC) ::Heck, there arguably was a "boss battle", just not a traditional one: the fight with the Destroyer guarding the beam. (Which, at least in my opinion, was probably more exciting than any "conventional" boss battle in the series).--Zxjkl (talk) 04:59, November 8, 2012 (UTC) A villain is not needed, but a strong, clear, protagonist is. --The Milkman | I always . 21:43, November 7, 2012 (UTC)